The remake is loads better!
-
Arctic_Wizard — 20 years ago(August 28, 2005 01:10 PM)
I, like you, saw the remake before I saw this one but I bow to both of them. Having been made in 1962, this is a very good conspiracy thriller but Jonathan Demme exploited the modern technology that we now have in the 21st century.
Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington were both superb in their roles as was Angela Lansbury and Janet Leigh. I give this film great credit as I give the new one - making them both my favourite films.
'I like Meerkats, I've a tea towel with some on' - Eileen Derbyshire -
Merkin4pres64 — 20 years ago(December 11, 2005 01:57 PM)
how the hell did Streep get a Golden Globe nomination for the remake. That performance was absolute beep. Lansbury should have won the Oscar, (mumbling) stupid Patty Duke
We were going to have children, but that would have severely drained my power crystals -
solman_66 — 20 years ago(March 28, 2006 08:09 PM)
You are out of your mind. My god, the 2004 version was trash, like most remakes. It had no heart, no soul, no passion, no intensity, no genuine 'feeling' and poor writing, poor direction, and a chickensh*t ending. You have unbelievably bad taste.
-
arittner — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 06:44 PM)
Although Meryl Streep did a good job in the remake, it was a terrible movie while the original was excellent, perhaps a great movie. And as good as Streep was, she was certainly not superior to Angela Lansbury who created one of the greatest characters in screen history.
There are many things wrong with the remake, one of which is it complicates the story unnecessarily and focuses on Marco's illness rather than on the actual story. Note that in the original, we get Marco's nightmare and his crackup on the train, but after that, the entire focus is where it should be, on Raymond Shaw and the plot.
Oh yes, and by the way, the original is genuinely funny. The remake is a ponderous mess. -
scorpio19th — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 07:40 PM)
Just saw the original on TV, for maybe the tenth time. Each time I manage to pick up on some slight thing that I've missed in my other viewings.
Lansbury should have won the award for her performance. In fact, I think it's her best ever.
A remake, in color, with such a different storyline, and more advanced film technology available nothing could possibly compare to the original.
Never do anything halfway ! -
I_donthavefb_lol — 18 years ago(May 29, 2007 01:07 PM)
The remake is not perfect by any means but its a more nuanced piece of work which confronts the truth as the original did not: the US was no innocent bystander when it came to mind control experiments. It was a leader of experiments that were outside any regulation or supervision by Congress.
-
saraannepotter — 18 years ago(June 17, 2007 02:16 PM)
I won't go so far as to discount everything made after 1990that'd be an entirely different post. I do disagree; the original took my breath away, and I thought the acting was spot-on. I appreciate a film that makes its audience pay attention and won't spoon-feed it, and Angela Lansbury still chills me every time. I can't listen to her sing "Beauty and the Beast" or play Jessica Fletcher in quite the same way after that. Also, it was a much riskier film to make at the time than in 2004. Maybe if you'd seen the original first?
And I don't mean to bash the remake. I'm just tired of remakes in general and thought the original was extremely well done and dared to be demanding of its viewing public. -
elk-run — 18 years ago(June 28, 2007 07:34 PM)
I rhought the remake was WAAAAAAAY better. I much preferred the Bee Gees and Frampton's version of Sgt. Pepper to those nasty Beatles as well. And while we're at it, the PT Cruiser is far superior to the Chrysler Airflow. I way like Clinton's job of being Jimmy Carter way more than Carter's. But I do think Reagan did a better Reagan that Bush does. But that's just me.
-
onepotato2 — 18 years ago(December 14, 2007 03:25 AM)
I saw the 2004 version of the film about a month before the original and I was very dissapointed with the original.
The '62 version is just a mess and greatly inferior to the remake.
You've gotta admit, the acting had to be a lot better in the remake.
by - fishpoo on Tue Jun 14 2005 03:26:09
Ugh all your taste is in your mouth. The remake is crap.
-
raymondsmother — 17 years ago(May 20, 2008 10:39 PM)
even if i didn't hold the remake up to the near impossible standards of the book and the original
the "dramatic moments" were so forced, so self-important, so "PAY ATTENTION THIS IS IMPORTANT" full of crap that i couldn't possibly take it seriously.
i actually tried to give it a second chance, but half an hour into it i gave up and watched the original again. it was much more satisfying.
Ladies and gentleman of the juryI'm just a caveman.